Why India has never appointed a ‘distinguished jurist’ to SC, Justice Bhuyan asks

On August 30, 2026, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, a senior judge of the Supreme Court of India, called for the immediate activation of the constitutional provision allowing the appointment of "distinguished jurists" as Supreme Court judges. His remarks came during the 13th convocation ceremony of the National Law University, Delhi's LLM program, where he addressed a gathering of graduates and highlighted the underutilization of Article 124(3) of the Indian Constitution, which permits the President to appoint individuals deemed "distinguished jurists" to the Supreme Court. This call followed ongoing protests by students at national law universities against the Chief Justice of India, who had made controversial remarks referring to certain groups as "cockroaches" and "parasites." Justice Bhuyan emphasized that despite the Constitution being over 76 years old, no legal scholar or academic has yet been appointed to the Supreme Court under this provision. He argued that the failure to utilize this clause might stem from a belief that Indian legal academia lacks sufficient depth or from a lack of serious exploration of the option by successive governments and the collegium system responsible for judicial appointments. During his address, Justice Bhuyan underscored the importance of diversity in the judiciary, stating that the inclusion of legal scholars could enrich the decision-making process at the highest levels of the judiciary. He dismissed the notion that legal academics lack the practical experience needed for judicial roles, asserting that the Supreme Court serves not just as an adjudicatory body but also as the guardian of the nation's moral, legal, and constitutional values. He cited examples from other countries where legal academics have been appointed to constitutional courts, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Kenya. In the U.S., notable figures such as Justice Felix Frankfurter, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer had academic backgrounds prior to their judicial appointments. Similarly, in the UK, former Supreme Court president Lady Hale and Justice Andrew Burrows had extensive academic careers before becoming judges. Justice Bhuyan's speech also touched upon the role of universities in fostering critical thinking and dissent. He urged graduates to embrace the courage to question existing norms and to engage with diverse viewpoints. He stressed that a democratic society thrives not on uniformity of thought but on the coexistence of multiple perspectives. His comments coincided with a recent controversy involving the Bar Council of India, which had initially ordered state bar councils to exclude the 2026 batch of NALSAR University of Law students from professional enrollment due to their objections to having the Chief Justice of India as a guest speaker at their convocation. The Bar Council later retracted this order following public backlash and criticism. The situation reflects growing tensions between the legal establishment and law students, who have increasingly voiced concerns over perceived biases and inappropriate statements by high-ranking legal officials. These incidents have sparked discussions about the need for greater accountability and sensitivity within the legal profession. Justice Bhuyan's advocacy for the appointment of legal academics aligns with a broader movement to reform the judicial appointment process in India. Critics argue that the current system, dominated by retired judges, lacks diversity and fails to incorporate fresh perspectives essential for addressing contemporary legal challenges. His push for change highlights the ongoing debate about the composition and function of the Supreme Court in modern India. The upcoming months will see continued scrutiny of the judicial appointment process, particularly regarding the potential inclusion of legal scholars. Legal experts and academics are expected to weigh in on the feasibility and implications of such reforms, potentially influencing future appointments and the direction of the Supreme Court.